See website for articles with hotlinks/references and graphics at:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html
July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 1

Documenting the catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far

THE IMPOSSIBLE TRAIN JOURNEY
Once the authorities had decided the affected trains had left King's Cross
underground station, and were not heading towards the station as originally
reported, and the Metropolitan Police had eventually decided the scope of
the investigation had widened to include possible suicide bombers, it was
originally announced that the alleged perpetrators had taken the 0740
Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross on the morning of July 7th.

An eyewitness later stated that she had been at Luton station that morning
and that the 0740 had been cancelled. Thameslink Rail later confirmed that
not only had the 0740 been cancelled but that all trains that morning ran
with heavy delays due to problems further up the line. This confirmation
first came from Marie Bernes at Thameslink Customer Relations and then from
Chris Hudson, the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail at Luton
Station at the time.

It was also reported that the accused had taken the later 0748 train, but
with reference to the actual Thameslink train times on July 7th, it was
found that this scenario could not be correct either. The 0748 did not reach
Thameslink until 8.42am; seven minutes after the Eastbound Circle Line train
had departed from Kings Cross, which later exploded between Liverpool St.
and Aldgate. The information about the departure times of the Underground
trains from King's Cross was obtained by J7 researcher, with full details
here. Nor did the 0748 reach Kings Cross Thameslink in time for the men to
have made the journey to Kings Cross Underground station to have been
captured on CCTV "shortly before 8.30am" as the police stated.

A scheduled 0730 train was delayed and left Luton station at 7.42am on July
7th. This train also arrived at King's Cross Thameslink station too late for
the accused to have caught the affected Underground trains, arrving as it
did four minutes after the first of the bombed tubes had already departed
Kings Cross.

The accused were shown on a single CCTV image taken from outside Luton
station, apparently entering the station six seconds before 7.22am, or so
the timestamp on the image would indicate. On this basis, the earliest train
alleged sucide bombers could have caught would have been the train that left
Luton at 7.25am. This train arrived at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.23am.

The Government narrative of the London Bombings states that the accused
caught the non-existent 0740 train and that it arrived at Thameslink at
8.23am. The narrative then says that the men were caught on CCTV at King's
Cross Thameslink at 8.26am, whereas it was previously reported that this
sighting had occurred at Kings Cross mainline station.

The narrative then claims the men were seen again, four minutes later at
Kings Cross mainline, where they proceeded to split up in different
directions, giving the impression that each man was off to board a tube
train. The quickest route from Thameslink to the tube lines is through an
underground subway but the narrative does not specify their alleged route
from King's Cross Thameslink station to the mainline station.

TFL Journey Planner advises to allow 6 minutes to transfer between King's
Cross Thameslink station and the mainline in the rush-hour, which doesn't
allow sufficient time for the accused to transfer between the Thameslink and
the mainline stations. The narrative states:

"The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the
Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground
system."

From the concourse of which the narrative is speaking, there are four
possible routes:

1.. Back down to the Thameslink platform at which they just arrived
2.. Down to the northbound Thameslink platform
3.. To the main exit out onto the street and
4.. To the underground via the subway.
By saying the men were "heading in the direction of the London Underground
system", the narrative is implying the men took the underground subway
route. There have recently been refurbishments at Kings Cross station which
now allow access from the Thameslink station to all tube lines. However, in
July last year, it was only possible to access the Northern, Victoria and
Piccadilly lines this way. Therefore, this route would only have facilitated
the journey of Lindsay, who is alleged to have boarded the Piccadilly Line
train; the other two men who were alleged to have been on the Circle Line
trains would have had to have found an alternative route to the Circle Line
platforms, necessitating their splitting up and making it extremely unlikely
they would have been seen together again at 8.30am, as the narrative
reports.

If we bear in mind that the eastbound Circle Line train left first, at
8.35am, and that Tanweer was reported to have still been on the Thameslink
platform at 8.26am, they would have had to have moved at a fast pace for him
to have caught this train. There are no reported witness sightings of four
men with large rucksacks running. It is extremely difficult to see how
Tanweer got to the Circle Line platform so quickly, if he either had to go
overground or take a complicated journey to the Circle Line platform from
another of the only platforms he could have reached via the Thameslink
subway.

We must also factor in that the narrative states:

"At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging.
They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to
board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train
and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train. Hussain also appeared to
walk towards the Piccadilly Line entrance."

The narrative does not give a source for this information, so it is unclear
whether the sighting was by CCTV camera or a witness, nor does it give the
exact location in Kings Cross station. Nor is it clear whether the sighting
is of the accused, else the narrative would surely have stated 'the 4 men'
rather than '4 men fitting their descriptions'. However, this scenario of
the men splitting up could only have occurred in the underground ticket hall
of Kings Cross mainline station. There is only one entrance to the
underground at Thameslink and also from the main concourse of the mainline
station, so it would not make sense for the men to have "split up" there.

Also confusing is that the Metropolitan police stated in a press conference
that the men were already at Kings Cross mainline by 8.26am when they
appealed for information about the movements of Hussain "between 8.26am at
King's Cross and 9.47am on the no. 30 bus when the explosion occurred."

This states that 8.26am was the last sighting of the men, as opposed to the
time of 8.30am given by the narrative and it is hard to see how they could
have been on the concourse at Thameslink station at 8.26am and also at Kings
Cross station at that time.

In conclusion, the incorrect train given by the narrative cannot be put down
to simple error. Even if the men had taken a train from Luton which actually
ran that morning, it still would have been extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for them to have been sighted at Kings Cross at the time they
were said to have been seen, or for them to have caught the underground
trains which were later bombed.

The narrative even says there were witnesses on the non-existent train who
believe they saw the men. How could this be so when there was no such train?
The anomalies in the narrative account regarding the train, its arrival time
and how the men could have been sighted at Kings Cross only serve to cause
much confusion.

THE TIME DISCREPANCY AT LUTON STATION
The narrative states that the men entered Luton station at 7.15am and passed
through the ticket barriers on to the platform. This contradicts the
timestamp of the one CCTV frame of them, released by the Metropolitan Police
Service, where they appear to be entering the station at 7.21:54. It would
not make much sense for the men to enter the station at 7.15am, buy their
tickets, pass through the ticket barriers and then exit the station only to
enter again at 7.22. Again, the narrative contradicts information already in
the public domain and no reason is given for this glaring discrepancy..

THE CCTV IMAGES
The image which was released of the four figures entering Luton station is
of extremely poor quality and on closer examination contains strange
elements. When magnified, the reflection in the mirrored building behind the
men shows an incorrect reflection of Hasib Hussain's legs. They should,
obviously, be the opposite to the direction of his legs in the foreground of
the picture, but they are in fact, a duplicate.

There are other anomalies in the CCTV image, which have been discussed at
length.

However, the strangest aspect of the CCTV images given for July 7th is that
only one still frame has ever been released apparently showing them all. It
is an extremely poor quality picture, yet the camera that captured it was
capable of taking a much higher resolution image only nine days before.

A complete sequence of images was released for the men taking a trip to
London on June 28th 2005. This day was reported to be a 'dummy run' or a
'terror rehearsal' but it is hard to see how this conclusion was drawn. Only
three of the four men are present, they are making the journey at a much
later time of day and do not visit the stations where the explosions
occurred on July 7th. On this basis, it does not appear to be a 'rehearsal'
at all.

An image of Hasib Hussain was released which was cropped and had no
timestamp. This image was reportedly taken inside Luton station and stated
by the police to have been taken at "approximately 7.20am".

According to the timestamp on the photo outside the station, this is two
minutes before he even went inside the station. It is odd that the police
should be giving approximate times. The image should have had a timestamp on
it also, giving the definite time it was taken, so why should approximations
come into it at all? There is also no explanation as to why it was necessary
to crop the picture, removing all background and making it hard to see where
the photo was actually taken.

A third image was released on October 2nd 2005 of Hasib Hussain apparently
exiting a Boots store onto the concourse of Kings Cross station. There was
no explanation as to why this image was released so much later than the
others. It was said to have been taken at 9am, yet Kings Cross was already
being evacuated at 9am. There are no signs of this in the CCTV picture.

There has been no CCTV showing the men in the car park at Luton station, on
the train from Luton to London, at Thameslink or Kings Cross or on any of
the tube platforms. According to Hazel Blears, this is due to the "ongoing
investigation" when questioned by an MP.

THE ODD CHOICE OF CAR
If the reports that Tanweer specifically hired a Nissan Micra for the
journey to London are correct, then these do not make sense on more than one
level. Firstly, it appears that he had hired the car some days before the
7th, because it was so overdue that a representative from the car hire
company had coincidentally turned up at his house to retrieve the car the
same day that the police raided it.

Tanweer himself drove a Mercedes, a much more spacious car to accommodate
three not insubstantially sized men, four rucksacks, a large amount of spare
bombs and cool boxes to store them in. It makes little sense to hire a small
car such as a Micra for such a journey. One might argue that the hiring of
the car was Tanweer's way of covering his tracks. However, he hired the car
in his own name and used his own credit card to pay for it; illustrated by
the company rep going straight to his house when the car became overdue for
return. This suggests Tanweer felt there was no reason to be covert about
hiring the car and therefore might just as well have driven his own car.

THE CHANGING COLOUR OF THE NISSAN MICRA
Up until September 2005, the colour of the Micra was universally reported as
being red. Then it changed to blue and silver-blue.

One explanation for the reporting of the car being 'red' was that it may
have been confused with the other car, apparently used by Germaine Lindsay,
which was, according to the narrative, a red Fiat Brava. However, the
narrative goes on to say that the Brava was towed away for not having a
ticket. According to some reports, the car had been towed away on the day of
the attacks and was apparently discovered in a compound in Leighton Buzzard,
in which case, no reporter would have even got to see this car in order to
confuse it with the Micra. The narrative reports the colour of the Micra as
being light blue.

THE BOMBS FOUND IN THE CAR
It was reported on July 18th that nine bombs had been found in the car at
Luton station car park, although the car in which they were found was
erroneously referred to as Lindsay's Fiat and the narrative states that the
Fiat was not there.

By July 27th the amount of bombs found in the car had risen to twelve.
Pictures were released of these bombs, strangely not by the police but by an
American news channel ABC.

These photos were 'obtained' by ABC news, and referred to in their report
stating that there were twelve bombs, even though the next day it was
reported by other media that the number of bombs found was, in fact,
sixteen.

The finding of the bombs in the cars curiously echoes the way in which a
trail was similarly found to incriminate the suspected 9/11 hijackers and
the Madrid bombing suspects. The 9/11 suspects apparently left their car in
the car park of Logan airport, which contained an Arabic flight manual for a
767, a copy of the Qu'ran and a fuel consumption calculator.

The Madrid suspects were traced through their apparently careless abandoning
of a van near the train station car park which contained spare detonators
and an Arabic tape of Qu'ranic quotes.

Perpetrators of any kind of crime, let alone one of this magnitude, tend not
to leave such an easy trail straight to them and their possible associates.

THE EVEN MORE LETHAL BOMBS LEFT BEHIND
Even more curious than the bombs being left in the cars, is why they left
them there at all when it has been recently stated, and confirmed by the
narrative that there were no other suspects involved with the attacks of
July 7th. This rules out the possibility that other potential terrorists
were waiting to retrieve the bombs later on to carry out further attacks.

If it was a suicide mission then there is hardly any logic to leaving behind
any bombs at all, especially ones that have been shown by the ABC pictures
to be even more capable of causing carnage than the ones actually used. Why
leave behind not only the spare bombs but a spare rucksack, which was first
reported to have been left under the passenger seat, although this report
suggests the rucksack was left in the boot of the car.

Why load up a rucksack with bombs that nobody was apparently going to carry?
The bus bomb, horrific as it was, might well have been far worse had it gone
off on the bottom deck in the centre, rather than at the rear of the upper
deck. These issues are not consistent with the alleged intention to cause
"maximum carnage".

The narrative does not mention in detail what was left in the car, only
referring to "other items consistent with the use of explosives." The
narrative suggests that explosive devices found in the car (without stating
which car) are of a different and smaller kind than those used in the
attacks. It suggests these were possibly to be used for "self-defence" or a
diversion in case the men were intercepted during their journey. This line
of reasoning does not appear to contain much logic. If the men happened to
be stopped on the way to London, then using bombs as a diversionary tactic
to allay suspicion that they might be terrorists would be rather absurd.

THE NON-EXISTENT CCTV ON THE BUS
Two days after the attacks, it was reported that Scotland Yard sources were
disappointed to find that the CCTV on the bus was not working, and they
would therefore have no footage of the person responsible for the attack
actually on board the vehicle. The source said:

"It's a big blow and a disappointment. If the cameras had been running we
would have had pin-sharp close-up pictures of the person who carried out
this atrocity. We don't know if the driver forgot to switch them on or if
there was a technical problem but there are no images."

The report went on to say that the bus had four cameras - one covering
people getting on, the second at the exit doors and one on each deck
scanning the length of the vehicle.

An employee of Stagecoach, the company which runs the bus which was bombed
gave an anonymous statement saying that there was no reason why the CCTV
should not have been working since they are maintained more than once a
week.

An ex London bus driver confirmed that the CCTV cameras not working on the
bus was an unlikely scenario.

THE DIVERSION OF THE BUS AND CONFUSION OVER THE ROUTE AND DRIVER
The Stagecoach employee also pointed out that the No.30 was the only bus to
be diverted from its usual route that morning. Traffic warden Adesoji Adesi
reported that the driver of the bus had been asking a traffic warden for
directions when the explosion occurred.

According to reports, the usual route of the No.30 was from Marble Arch to
Hackney along the Euston Road.

The destination blind of the bus stated 'Hackney Wick', yet for the first
week after the bombings it was reported that the bus had been travelling
from Hackney, terminating at Marble Arch. It is difficult to see how this
error was made, given that the destination blind was clear to see.

Also rather oddly, the driver of the bus, after helping to pull several
passengers from the wreckage, walked for seven miles to the Central
Middlesex Hospital at Acton, instead of seeking help closer like other
survivors.

The driver was also reported by a Greek newspaper to be under police
protection in a 'secret location' on July 12th - although he was back at
work by September 8th, driving the bus for the first time since July 7th.
Strangely, the report tells of how poignant the driver found it to "pass the
site" of the explosion, yet the normal route of the No.30 does not pass
Tavistock Square, as stated earlier.

THE SECOND BUS EXPLOSION AND STRANGE REPORTING OF THE DEATH OF A WITNESS
A New Zealand doctor, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, who had been in the BMA
building when the bus exploded outside, mentioned that there had been a
second, controlled explosion on the bus.

"There was no room for hesitation - I wasn't thinking at that level. It
was the moral and ethical thing to do," she said, before going on to
describe how police then carried out a controlled explosion on a second
suspect bomb. Scotland Yard, however, said there was no record of a second,
controlled explosion at Tavistock Square."

There are other reports which correlate with her account of a second
explosion on the bus.

"All the time they were conscious of a microwave box which had been left
beside a window and was causing people to fear a secondary
explosion.Eventually a bomb disposal unit were called and they destroyed the
package."

Ms. Oates-Whitehead was found dead at her flat in Shepherd's Bush, London at
the age of 35, two weeks later. There was an active media campaign to
discredit her, this was highly apparent. The article from which her above
quote was taken referred to her in the headline as a "bogus" doctor, yet
Richmal Oates-Whitehead, was indeed a doctor.

It seems strange, when reporting the death of a young woman under strange
circumstances to concentrate solely on the veracity of certain things she
had said or done throughout her life. This is not generally the way
unexpected deaths are reported.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE BUS
The Metropolitan Police, in a statement on July 14th, said that they
estimated there were around 80 people on the bus when it exploded.

Many reports indicate that the bus was filled to capacity, mainly due to the
Underground being evacuated. The narrative stated that the bus bomb injured
over 110 people. Obviously, not everybody injured by the bomb was a
passenger on the bus, but the amount of people on the bus appears to be in
dispute.

I saw a No 30 bus at Woburn Place with people getting off. My friend and I
ran to catch it, we knocked on the door for the driver to open the door, he
didn't as he needed I suppose to pull away in order to let an unmarked blue
coloured car with the sirens going that was stuck in traffic trying to go
through into Euston road. The bus was full but not cramped with people."

Source: BBC News

This seems to be backed up by this account from a survivor of the bus bomb:

"I strolled back to Euston to hop on a bus. It was now about 9.30am, and
when the No 30 came with some space on it, I thought: "I'll just get out of
Euston." Then the bus driver said we'd be diverted and those who wanted
could walk to King's Cross. Oh, the lucky people who got off! The bus was
emptier now and I got a seat at the back."

Source: The Times

Yet the bus driver had apparently had to stop passengers boarding,
presumably because the bus was so full:

"I turned into Woburn Place at the same time as a number 30 bus, which
would normally have headed straight towards Baker Street. The driver turned
away one lucky lady at a bus-stop and he had got 50 yards ahead of me when I
heard a bang."

THE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD JONES
Richard Jones stated that he had been on the No.30 bus, and had got off just
before it exploded. According to Reuters, he stated that he got off the bus
when he realised it wasn't following its usual route. He also stated this in
an interview with 'Good Morning America'. He then went on to say that not
only did about half a dozen people get off the bus with him, for the same
reason, but the same number left via the back door of the bus. This
conflicts with the statements in the section above.

Later on, Richard Jones changed his story and claimed he had left the bus
because of the bizarre behaviour of a man he believed was the bomber. He
described a man who was fiddling with a small bag at his feet, and who was
wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear
and a matching jersey-style top. Mr. Jones even described the underwear,
saying "The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on
top."

As can be clearly seen when compared to the CCTV images released of Hussain
that day, this description does not even slightly equate to what he was
actually wearing or the size of bag he was carrying. Moreover, Mr. Jones
states that he was on the lower deck of the bus on the drivers' side, yet
the bomb exploded at the rear of the top deck, and seems confused as to
whether he was sitting or standing and whether the 'agitated young man' was
facing him or facing away from him, since these details changed with every
account Richard Jones gave.

Regardless of the unusually vast capacity for detail of Richard Jones'
memory, all the details were completely wrong. He is not a credible witness
and did not see Hasib Hussain on the bus. Yet his testimony is cited in the
narrative.

THE ILLOGICAL MOVEMENTS OF HASIB HUSSAIN
The Government narrative states that after the men were seen at "around
8.30am" together at Kings Cross, and then split off into different
directions, Hussain appeared to walk towards the entrance to the Piccadilly
Line, in the same apparent direction as Lindsay. However, what he did after
this appears to make no sense. The narrative does not mention Hussain again
until 8.55am, when he apparently left the station to walk onto Euston Road
where he apparently tried to contact the other three men on his phone.
According to the reports at the time these phone calls came to light,
Hussain was "frantic" and the calls described as "desperate".

Conversely, although the phone calls are mentioned, the narrative relays
that Hussain's demeanour was "relaxed and unhurried" over this period. There
is also no explanation for how Hussain apparently had his phone with him in
order to make these calls, yet his mobile was also apparently left in his
room for his brother to find.

"When he failed to get in touch and the family heard news of the bombings,
brother Imran went through Hussain's computer and the numbers in his mobile
phone memory. Imran chanced upon one for Jermaine "Jamal" Lindsay, 19, the
King's Cross attacker. He also called a stored number that led him to 18
Alexandra Grove in Burley, Leeds, which is now known to be the bomb
factory."

Source: The Mirror

Five minutes later, at 9am, he re-enters Kings Cross through Boots - and is
caught on CCTV coming out of the front of the store - then goes into WHSmith
where "it appears" he bought a 9v battery. It is bewildering that the
narrative uses this terminology - what made it "appear" that Hussain bought
the battery? They are unable to ascertain whether or not he bought a battery
but are able to ascertain the type of battery he bought? This makes no sense
at all. Or is it that they can ascertain that he bought a battery but cannot
say for sure what type it was? If this is the case, then why speculate at
all as to the type of battery, when surely the phrase "He bought a battery"
would suffice.

Hussain then left the station again and made his way across and along the
Euston Road to McDonalds. All of this apparently took place within six
minutes, as the narrative claims he entered McDonalds at 9.06am.

He apparently caught a No.91 bus, but at an unknown point, disembarked and
boarded the No.30, which exploded at 9.47am. There is no reason why Hussain
should have chosen to board a bus rather than a tube train; contrary to
early reports, despite disruptions to the tube lines, he could have caught a
train. Some reports even speculated that he had in fact attempted to board a
train and failed to detonate his bomb. This was an explanation given for the
apparent purchase of the battery, and the reason the bus was chosen as a
target was because Kings Cross, by 9am was already being evacuated.

This speculation is not borne out by the narrative. It is also odd that
despite the evacuation of Kings Cross, there are no signs of this in the
CCTV image of Hussain leaving Boots.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS OF THE PICCADILLY LINE BLAST
A comment which appeared on the blog of a survivor of the Piccadilly Line
explosion highlighted a peculiar situation regarding the number of the
train. The driver of train 311 had been told that there was no record of his
having been involved in the attacks, despite the fact that he had been
interviewed at length after the explosion.

TFL stated that they had given the train number 311 in error and the actual
number was 331.

This is in direct conflict with survivor statements and those of the driver,
his companion and the Duty Manager of Russell Square Station.

There have also been conflicting reports of where the explosion actually
occurred in the train; a BBC report stated:

"The device was in the first carriage by the first set of double doors
where passengers stand."

which was what the Metropolitan Police had stated a week after the bombings.
However, the same BBC report changed later on:

"The device was next to the rear set of double doors in the front carriage
of the train."

This was apparently amended after survivors corrected the initial reports.
However, some sources, including the Metropolitan Police website, still
state that the explosion occurred at the front of the first carriage rather
than the rear. The narrative, confusing as ever, simply states "Forensic
evidence suggests the explosion occurred on or close to the floor of the
standing area between the second and third set of seats."

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS OF THE ALDGATE BLAST
There are absolutely no witness sightings of Shehzad Tanweer, the man
accused of causing this explosion. The narrative states

"Shehzad Tanweer is not visible, but he must have been in the second
carriage from the front."

Which gives the distinct impression that this is merely an assumption. In
fact, one survivor, who was very close to where the blast had occurred,
said:

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal
was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to
think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where
the bomb was, or any bag,"

Source: Cambride News

The hole in the floor with the metal pushed upwards was also described by
Lizzie Kenworthy, an off-duty police officer who was on the train two
carriages behind the bomb.

These accounts are consistent with a report published on July 8th, which
stated:

"A counter-terrorism source told us the device was probably left on the
floor of a train leaving Aldgate East Underground station. It was operated
by remote control to explode at precisely the moment another train was
passing in the opposite direction."

The report also describes how it was not just one train affected by the
explosion:

"It is thought the blast - shortly before 9am - ripped through the shell
of the carriage and tore a hole in the oncoming train..Our source said: "It
was utter carnage inside both trains. There were limbs scattered
everywhere."

In early reports the bombed train was reported to have been traveling
towards Liverpool Street from the direction of Aldgate. In fact, TFL stated
that not only was the train traveling in this direction but that it was on
the Hammersmith and City Line, rather than the Circle Line. When an
independent researcher queried whether this train was one which had been
travelling in the opposite direction but affected by the bomb on the Circle
Line train, the response from TFL was that this report had been given in
error and that only one train had been affected.

The Metropolitan Police stated that the bomb had been on a train travelling
"from Liverpool Street to Aldgate station" presumably this refers to the
train being between these stations when the blast occurred. The police also
said that the device was in the third carriage of the train.

However, the narrative places Tanweer in the second carriage of the train as
stated above. It would surely be obvious, even a week later, exactly in
which carriage the blast occurred.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS OF THE EDGWARE ROAD BLAST
Similar to the other incidents, there are no reliable witness sightings of
Khan on the train. Survivor Danny Biddle remembers seeing Khan. However,
there is no definitive account from Mr. Biddle; it changes every time it has
been reported, varying from whether Khan was sitting or standing, the
distance Mr.Biddle says he was from Khan, and whether Khan was holding his
rucksack in front of him or whether it was on his back.

The press sensationally implied that another passenger, John Tulloch "may
have seen" Khan, presumably due to Mr.Tulloch's proximity to the explosion.
However, there is also this:

"But surprisingly Prof Tulloch said the image of the bomber did not
trigger his memory, and he remains unconvinced whether he saw the man who
may have been sitting opposite him.

"I don't know if I did see him," he said. "I'm still not sure. In my
police report I emphasised that I had a strong impression of someone who
looked like him and was sitting opposite me in the Tube, but I can't
guarantee that it was that day."

As with Aldgate, there were suggestions that more than one train was
involved in the incident. At the press conference a week after the bombings,
the police stated:

"The explosion blew a hole through a wall onto another train on an
adjoining platform. The device was in the second carriage, in the standing
area near the first set of double doors."

Source: Metropolitan Police Service

An independent researcher asked TFL to clarify how many trains were involved
in the Edgware Road incident and received the reply:

"In total, four trains were damaged. Three of the trains were those where
the explosions took place. A fourth train, a Hammersmith & City line train,
at Edgware sustained damage, while passing Circle line train 216 when the
device exploded. No fatalities or injuries were recorded on the Hammersmith
& City line train."

TFL only cites a Hammersmith and City line train being affected by the
Edgware Road blast, but this is in direct conflict with the accounts of
Jenny Nicholson, a victim of the Edgware Road blast:

"Jenny Nicholson, who was 24, was killed by the suicide bomber Mohammed
Sidique Khan on the eastbound Circle line service she had boarded at
Paddington station."

Source: The Guardian

Jenny was on an eastbound Circle Line train which she had boarded at
Paddington station, yet Mohammad Sidique Khan was reported to be on the
westbound train that he had allegedly boarded at Kings Cross.

Eyewitness accounts also support the view that the other train involved was
an eastbound Circle Line train. It's hard to see how TFL can be unclear
which lines were affected by the explosion at Edgware Road.

THE CHANGING OF THE BLAST TIMES
On July 7th, the Metropolitan Police outlined the times that the explosions
occurred at a press conference:

"At 08.51 on 7 July at Liverpool Street Station there was a confirmed
explosion in a carriage 100 yards into the (Liverpool Street-bound station)
tunnel.

At 08.56 there was another incident at King's Cross / Russell Square. Both
stations were used to bring out casualties.

At 09.17 there was an explosion on a train coming into Edgware Road
underground station approximately 100 yards into the tunnel. The explosion
took place on a train and blew through a wall onto another train on an
adjoining platform."

Source: Metropolitan Police Service

These times were confirmed the next day by the Government Office for
London - albeit with a rather inexcusable error in the first blast time
given; 8.15am rather than 8.51am.

However, the day after that, July 9th, the police revised the original
timings and said that the explosions had happened "simultaneously" within
seconds of each other at around 8.50am. TFL released a statement the same
day confirming these new times.

TFL said that their evidence was based upon the precise time the Tunnel
Telephone system on the Piccadilly line went out of service. If this
happened at 8.50 then it is difficult to see how 8.56 could have been
originally given as the time for this blast.

Strangely, some sources have even given the time of the first explosion,
which occurred on the Eastbound Circle Line train as 8.49am, which is backed
up by this statement:

"The first report of a major incident at Liverpool Street station was
received by the London ambulance service at 0849, within a minute of the
blast." Source

This is, of course, in conflict with the bombs having occurred at 8.50.

It is hard to see how the timings could have changed from having quite large
gaps in between to being simultaneous. A log of events released by London
Underground shows the initial confusion over what had happened.

THE NUMBER OF EXPLOSIONS INITIALLY REPORTED
On the morning of July 7th, Ian Blair issued a statement:

"London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair tells the BBC he
knows of "about six explosions", one on a bus and the others related to
Underground stations. He says he believes the six affected areas are Edgware
Road, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Russell Square, Aldgate East and
Moorgate"

Source: BBC News

British Transport Police had said over an hour earlier that "power surge
incidents" had occurred on the Underground at Aldgate, Edgware Road, King's
Cross, Old Street and Russell Square stations.

Since the blasts occurred on trains that were between stations, wounded
people were apparently emerging from both stations, which would explain some
of the confusion, although a survivor of the Aldgate explosion says they
were not allowed to exit through Liverpool Street but instead had to walk
through the tunnel towards Aldgate, past the bombed carriage and the carnage
it contained.
Old Street and Moorgate are one stop away from each other on the Northern
Line. What occurred there that it was judged to have been an explosion site
as well? Just after the police confirmed reports of the bus explosion,
Transport Union officials reported that there had been three bus explosions.
There were also reports that two buses had been damaged in explosions; one
in Tavistock Square and one in Russell Square.

"Witness, Belinda Seabrook said of the Russell Square blast: "I was on the
bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the
double decker bus was in the air."

Source: BBC News

Surely this witness would have been aware of her location?

The next day, July 8th, however, Ian Blair was confident about the number of
bombs.and also, oddly, about the number of bombers:

"If London could survive the Blitz, it can survive four miserable bombers
like this. I'm not saying there are four bombers, four miserable events like
this."

One might assume, as he quickly corrected himself, that this was a mere
slip, since it was reported on the same day that it was believed 15
terrorists would have been needed to carry out the attacks. Either way, odd
that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would retract use of the word
'bombers' when it is apparently widely accepted that 'four miserable
bombers' were responsible for what happened.

July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 2

Documenting the catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far
| Mind the Gaps #1 | Mind the Gaps #2 |

THE TIMING DEVICES
On July 8th, The Guardian carried a report which said:

"Police denied that they had recovered any unexploded devices. But a
source told The Guardian that three controlled explosions had been carried
out on "suspect devices".

Furthermore Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA's
counter-terrorism centre, told The Guardian that "two unexploded bombs" were
recovered as well as "mechanical timing devices".

There were similar reports in other media, including The World Tribune,
which stated:

"Al Qaida employed light but advanced bombs detonated by timers in last
week's bloody strike on London's mass transit system. British officials said
authorities have determined that the four bombs that blew up in subways and
a bus in London on July 7 were composed of less than 4.5 kilograms of
explosives each. They said the bombs were small enough to fit in a knapsack
and were detonated by timers rather than suicide attackers."

The NYPD stated that they believed the timing devices had involved the use
of mobile phones. Interestingly, the NYPD was criticized for making an
"erroneous statement" regarding the information they released regarding the
explosives used and the method of their detonation - which implies that the
information they released was wrong. However, the only error they made was
suggesting that Scotland Yard had given them clearance to state their
findings, which it had not.

Scotland Yard refused to comment on the NYPDs findings.

On July 16th, The Mirror ran a cover story questioning the 'suicide bomber'
theory. Other media also questioned it, since this theory is constantly
implied and has been generally assumed to be the correct one, but has never
actually been stated categorically by the authorities.

By August 24th, it was apparently confirmed that remote detonators had not
been used. Instead, senior police sources told reporters that the bombs had
been triggered by the pressing of a device similar to a button.

"The news that the bomb attacks were carried out with button-like devices
triggering the bombs was confirmed to the Guardian by several separate
senior police and counter-terrorism sources.

"There were no mobile phone timers on the seventh," one source said. "They
were manually activated".

Source: The Guardian

However, witness testimony seems to conflict with there being 'button like
devices'. Danny Biddle, who claims he saw Mohammad Sidique Khan detonate his
bomb on the train at Edgware Road, said:

"I noticed him reaching into his bag and he didn't say or do anything. He
wasn't agitated or fidgety, he was very calm. He looked at me and looked
around the carriage. Then he pulled some sort of cord."

Source: The Mirror

However, Mr. Biddle's account has not been consistently reported, as
mentioned previously.

That the detonation was caused by something being 'pulled' rather than
'pressed' was also suggested by the testimony of bus bomb survivor, Louise
Barry, who was found to have the detonation device embedded in her leg. The
device was described as a 'toggle'.

"TARA BROWN: Do you know what role the toggle played in the bomb itself?
LOUISE BARRY: No, they're just saying it's the bit that's pulled ... from
the bomb before it ... I imagine like a grenade or something, like a pin."

The narrative merely says that there is evidence which indicates that they
were "coordinated suicide attacks". The evidence which it has outlined,
despite its suggestions that the men were involved in the making of the
bombs, does not conclusively prove that they intended to die. It even
states:

"Witness accounts suggest 2 of the men were fiddling in their rucksacks
shortly before the explosions."

Despite the fact that one of these was Richard Jones, who obviously did not
see Hasib Hussain at all, and the only other witness on public record who
made a similar statement, also gave conflicting accounts. The narrative also
cites Hussain's 'appearance' of buying a battery that morning as further
evidence that remote detonators were not used, when the narrative cannot say
for sure whether he did actually buy a battery or not. The narrative states
that there was no evidence at the bomb sites of remote detonation, which
obviously conflicts with the reports above from the authorities who
supposedly saw them. Surely, by the time the narrative was complete it
should have been confirmed exactly how the bombs were detonated and not
leave the narrative itself to employ speculation based on quite flimsy
evidence.

THE CHANGING TYPE OF EXPLOSIVES USED
A CNN report on July 10th said:

"Technical data and witness accounts suggest the bombs contained
synchronized timing devices and were probably not triggered by suicide
bombers, police said, adding that the bombs were composed of "high
explosives" and probably not homemade material."

Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit,
was also reported to have said a day later that the explosives used were
"military in origin". He also mentioned that they were possibly trafficked
from the Balkans, since it would generally be quite difficult to obtain
military explosives, unless the men had "someone on the inside" to get them
out of the military establishment.

"Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, head of the French security service's
Anti-terrorist Co-ordination Unit, said: "The use of military explosives is
very worrying. We are more used to seeing home-made explosives made from
chemicals. How did they procure them?"

Source: Irish Examiner

The possibility of the explosives being sourced in the Balkans was also put
forward by the French Interior Minister:

"French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told the emergency meeting of EU
justice ministers in Brussels that there was strong suspicion the explosives
used in the bombings came from the Balkans or Eastern Europe, where it is
possible to buy the material on the black market after the Balkan wars."

Source: Irish Examiner

Charles Clarke, the then home secretary was reported to have been
"bewildered" by these comments, even though reports stated:

"Traces of military plastic explosive, more deadly and efficient than
commercial varieties, are understood to have been found in the debris of the
wrecked Underground carriages and the bus. Scotland Yard has asked its
counterparts around Europe to check stockpiles at military bases and
building sites for missing explosives."

Source: Irish Examiner

And Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick told a news
conference on Saturday July 9th:

"All we are saying is that it is high explosives. That would tend to
suggest that it is not home-made explosive. Whether it is military
explosive, whether it is commercial explosive, whether it is plastic
explosive we do not want to say at this stage."

Source: World Tribune

Other sources went as far as identifying the explosive found at the blast
sites as C4:

"Traces of the explosive known as C4 were found at all four blast sites,
and The Times of London said Scotland Yard considers it vital to determine
if they were part of a terrorist stockpile."

Source: Science Daily

Another report stated:

"Immediately after the blasts detectives found traces of RDX explosive, a
key component used in the Madrid train bombings."

Source: The Mirror

By mid-July, however, when police reported that they had found traces of
explosives in a flat in Leeds, there was no more mention of "high grade" or
"military explosives".

The Independent reported that police had found a "bath filled with
explosives" in the flat in Alexandra Grove in Burley, although other reports
much less sensationally told of the police finding "traces of explosives" in
the flat.

The explosive reportedly found was triacetone triperoxide (TATP), an
extremely unstable substance, nicknamed 'Mother of Satan'. According to an
information page about Acetone Peroxides:

"TATP is widely considered to be too unstable to synthesize safely in
standard laboratory facilities, though small quantities (under 1 gram) are
occasionally synthesized for research purposes, and for testing and
calibration of detection equipment."

Source: WikiBook

Which makes it seem rather unlikely that TATP could be produced in
quantities that would fill a bath, and then driven a substantial distance in
a car before being carried around in a rucksack - especially as one a
representative of the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch claimed one
of the men was on CCTV "going into shops and bumping into people".

Confusingly, though, it was also reported that the 'primed' bombs left in
the Nissan Micra at Luton station were composed of a different type of
explosive, hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. Even though the narrative
states that different, smaller explosives were found in the car, reports in
September 2005 imply that what was found in the car matches up to the
explosives found at the blast sites:

"British investigators said they found two unexploded bombs made from
peroxide-based HMTP, and encased in nails in a car the attackers left at the
Luton train station north of the capital. They did not immediately specify
how they knew the bombs that exploded aboard three London subways and a bus
were made from peroxide-based explosives, which must be kept cool until
used."

Source: SP Times

and indeed the NYPD had claimed it was HMDT that was used in the attacks:

"In an unusually detailed briefing, officials from the NYPD's large
anti-terrorism department, said that the bombs used a peroxide-based
explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. HMDT can be
mixed from mundane ingredients such as hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach). The
only unusual piece of equipment the bomb-maker needed to produce large
quantities of HMDT was a commercial refrigerator, because the explosive
degrades if it is left at room temperature. Yesterday, NYPD officials said
that an expensive fridge was found in the otherwise rundown flat in
Dewsbury, on the outskirts of Leeds, where investigators believe the bombs
used on July 7 were built, and that the devices were brought to Luton in
cooler boxes in the boots of two cars."

Source: The Times

Another report made the point that one of the ingredients of this type of
explosive was used in cooking by the military:

"The NYPD officials said investigators believe the bombers used a
peroxide-based explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine.
HMDT can be made using ordinary ingredients like hydrogen peroxide (hair
bleach), citric acid (a common food preservative) and heat tablets
(sometimes used by the military for cooking)."

Source: CNN

The numerous reports that carried this story were seemingly unable to even
abbreviate the name of the explosive correctly. The actual abbreviation for
hexamethylene triperoxide diamine is HMTD.

It is interesting how detailed the NYPD had been in their investigations.
All the narrative will say about the explosives used in the attacks is that
"Expert examination continues but it appears the bombs were homemade".

It is somewhat strange that "expert examination" continues almost a year
later. What kinds of tests are being done that would take so long to yield
results? Again, the narrative uses the terminology "it appears"; yet this
informatin would have been established in a matter of days, if not weeks.

Despite the narrative being unable to state what kind of explosives were
used and how, it is able to state that the "mixtures would have had a strong
bleaching effect" and that "both Tanweer and Hussain's families had noticed
that their hair had become lighter over the weeks before the bombing." The
families are not on public record as saying this. Tanweer's friends had
apparently noticed that he had dyed his hair.

However, according to the CCTV footage of just three of the men that was
released from their trip to London a week before the bombings, Tanweer's
hair looked extremely dark, and so does Hussain's in the three images of him
released from the July 7th. How, though, can the narrative know the effects
of the explosives' manufacturing process without specifcally stating what
the explosives used were?

Finally, despite the more recent reports stating that the explosives were
homemade, cheap to obtain and that the attacks were "a modest, simple affair
by four seemingly normal men using the internet", it is difficult to
reconcile that with this excerpt of a report from The Times:

"Forensic scientists have told The Times that the construction of the four
devices detonated in London was very technically advanced. "You keep hearing
that terrorists can easily make a bomb from using instructions on the
internet. You can, but not of the design and sophistication of these
devices. These were well put together, and it would appear the bomb-maker
has highly developed skill," one expert said."

Source: The Times

THE SIMULTANEOUS ANTI-TERROR DRILL
A company named Visor Consultants was running an exercise for an unnamed
company which involved the scenario of simultaneous bombs going off at the
time when London actually did come under attack. The Managing Director of
Visor, Peter Power, gave an interview on the afternoon of July 7th where he
said:

"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a
company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs
going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning,
so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."
(Download MP3 audio file of this interview)

Despite this coincidence, sensationalized by Peter Power himself, he
admitted later on that the drill had not completely mirrored the actual
events, and had also involved mainline stations as targets. He also
expressed surprise that people would be interested in the remarkable
comments he made in his interview and also attempted to minimise the
similarities between the exercise and the actual attacks. Despite the fact
that he had said the exercise involved the bombs going off at 'precisely'
the railway stations where the attacks had occurred, he later pronounced
that in fact only two of the locations had been similar. However, even after
downplaying the parallels, he went on to state "the timing and script was
nonetheless, a little disconcerting".

Terror drills are not unknown in London, but other coincidences may be the
involvement of Peter Power in several high profile tragic events before 7/7,
such as the Kings Cross fire of 1987 and the Libyan Embassy siege of 1984,
and the strong links that he has with the police and the Government.

Additionally, Peter Power had previous experience of rehearsing bombs on the
Underground. He helped create the BBC's Panorama programme London Under
Attack months before July 2005 and in which London fell victim to a
terrorist attack underground, followed by the explosion of a land-based
vehicle, a situation not entirely dissimilar to his July 7th rehearsal
operation and the events of that day.

He is a former Detective Inspector in counter-terrorism and is a close
associate of Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Chief. He was also
selected by the Government to write the Best Management Practice Guide on
Crisis & Business Continuity Planning & Risk Management.

Peter Power also has connections to former New York Mayor, Rudi Giuliani; he
served on the Advisory Board to the Canadian Centre for Emergency
preparedness(CCEP), alongside the senior Vice President of Giuliani and
Partners, Richard Sheirer, who was also Director of the New York Mayor's
office of Emergency Management, overseeing the rescue and recovery
operations following the September 11th attacks. Giuliani and partners is a
security consultantcy and Investment Bank and Mr. Giuliani himself, by
another coincidence, happened to be in London for a conference and just
yards away from Liverpool Street station when the blast occurred there on
the morning of July 7th.

Peter Power acts as an independent security consultant to the media
examining the impact of terrorism on London. It would not be unrealistic
that he would be conducting an anti-terror exercise, but it is strange that
it happened to be on the same day, at the same time, and involving the same
stations. Peter Power himself admits this, even when attempting to downplay
the coincidence. It arouses suspicion when considering the 'Wargames'
exercises of the morning of September 11th, involving the same scenarios
that later occurred. The chances of these situations being simple
coincidence appear quite slim.

THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACKS
Terrorism experts in the USA reported that they had been told by
"intelligence sources" that at least one person had been warned that a
terrorist attack was about to take place. The person they referred to was
the Israeli Finance Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who was due to attend an
economic conference in a hotel near Liverpool Street station.

"Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli
Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to
the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and
shortly after that, there was the explosion."

Source: WTVQ

The Associated Press broke the story, and in a follow-up report, stated that
the story had been denied by the Israeli Government who said that Netanyahu
received the warning after the blasts occurred. However, the head of Mossad
had said in an interview with a German newspaper

The Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but
only six minutes before the first blast. As a result, it was impossible to
take any action to prevent the blasts."

Source: Al Jazeera

Other reports even claim that the warning was not received minutes before
the attacks, but days before.

Netanyahu himself also denied, though, that he had received any such
warning, calling the reports "entirely false". Although this report claims
that the AP "quickly replaced the story", they never retracted it.

Reports of the warning can still be found on the Israel National News web
site:

Israel Was Warned Ahead of First Blast
10:43 Jul 08, '05 / 1 Tammuz 5765

(IsraelNN.com) Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a
short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a
short time before they occurred.

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in
Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than
make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a
Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.

At present, train and bus service in London have been suspended following
the series of attacks. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility
at this time.

Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in
any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror
attacks.

Source: Israel National News

If there was advance knowledge of the attacks, even if they could not have
been prevented, surely it would have been more constructive to have warned
TFL Managers and people who could have worked to minimize the resulting
confusion - if not the destruction - rather than a politician who was still
in his hotel room and would not have been on a tube train that morning?

It is perhaps also interesting to note that the conference which Israeli
Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was due to attend was organised by an
alliance of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and Deutsche Bank, the German
Financial Services organisation who had become only the second international
member of the TASE just one year previously.

Perhaps the conference was related to the anniversary of the union between
the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and the German financial services giant on July
6th, the day it was announced London had won the Olympic bid for 2012?

Deutsche Bank Becomes a Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange Member
July 6, 2004

TEL-AVIV, Israel --(Business Wire)-- July 6, 2004 -- The Tel-Aviv Stock
Exchange announced that Deutsche Securities Israel, a subsidiary of Deutsche
Bank AG, has become an exchange member. Membership enables direct access to
trading on the exchange. The TASE Board of Directors approved the German
bank's membership on July 1.

Deutsche Securities Israel becomes the TASE's second international member
after UBS, which joined the exchange in 1997.

Source: TMC

THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED PERPETRATORS
It was first claimed that the four suspects were so-called 'clean skins' and
thus able to plan and execute the attacks unknown to the police and security
services.

However, on July 13th, French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy revealed
that Charles Clarke had informed him that this was not the case, and that
two of the suspects had been arrested in 2004 but released in order to break
the wider network. Mr. Clarke vehemently denied that he had told Mr. Sarkozy
any such thing.

On October 26th, it was revealed that Mohammad Sidique Khan had been under
MI5 surveillance in 2004 and shockingly, a few days later it came to light
that all four men had been tracked.

In February 2006, it was claimed that the NYPD and the FBI had warned
British Officials that a Pakistani-American in custody in New York had
alleged that he knew Khan and that he was "trouble", even though the
informant, Junaid Babar, had already made his claims back in July. There is
a very interesting background to Junaid Babar, who had been told he would
serve less time under a plea deal, which presumably involved identifying
terror suspects.

The ISC report into the London Bombings describes Khan as having been
"peripheral" to previous surveillance and investigative operations, despite
the fact that a lot of time and money was spent on photographing him,
tapping his telephone and tracking his car. Transcripts of the taped
telephone conversations were never made available to the ISC.
The Times reported:

"For the ISC report to be more incisive would not have been difficult. It
does reveal that there were occasions before the attacks when MI5's
attention was drawn directly or indirectly to Khan but goes to great lengths
to play them down. For example, the report notes that in 2003 a known
terrorist suspect under investigation by MI5 made calls to a telephone
number registered to a "Siddeque Khan".

Source: Times Online

Which is interesting, because that was not Mohammad Sidique Khan's name.
Even more curiously, the ISC report spelled all of the men's names
incorrectly:

"The 7 July bombers have been identified as Mohammed Siddeque Khan (30),
Hasib Hussein (18), Shazad Tanweer (22), and Jermaine Lindsay (19)."

The actual spellings are Mohammad Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad
Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay. This makes one wonder how they could have been
effectively monitored if such rudimentary details about them are wrong.

THE DISCOVERY OF KHAN'S PROPERTY IN THREE LOCATIONS
The Metropolitan Police stated in a press conference that they had found
personal documents bearing the names of three of the four suspects close to
the seats of three of the four explosions. They also stated that property in
the name of Mohammad Sidique Khan was found at both the Edgware Road blast
site and the site of the Aldgate blast.

Even stranger, according to the narrative, not only had Khan's property been
found at the two blast sites on July 9th, even more of his property was
found at the scene of the bus explosion in Tavistock Square on July 14th.

Why would Khan's property have been at sites he was not otherwise
forensically linked to? A simple answer would be that the other suspects
were carrying his identification along with their own, but a further
argument would be why were any of them bothering to carry identification at
all?

Despite the surprising survival of this documentation, it would generally be
unlikely to remain intact during the explosions, since the documents would
be at the very epicentre of the blasts. It also seems odd that the men would
be carrying incriminating receipts with them on a suicide mission, as The
Mail reported.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUSPECTS
It is completely unclear how the suspects were definitely identified. DNA
has been mentioned but it is not stated where the samples were taken from
and what they were matched with. What about evidence other than DNA which,
once upon a time, would be required in order to secure a conviction for even
the most minor offence?

Two of the men, Tanweer and Hussain, have reportedly had family funerals and
their remains have been interred in Pakistan and Yorkshire respectively.
There has been no account stating the whereabouts of Lindsay's body, and the
family of Khan have asked for a second post-mortem to be carried out on his
remains, which are apparently in fifty separate packets.

None of the families of the men have identified their remains. Lindsay's
mother stated:

"I don't know whether that was my son. Neither I nor his wife have been
able to identify him."

The family of Hussain say they have been shown no other evidence than the
credit card belonging to him which was found in the bus wreckage.

A strange report in The Scotsman stated that Hussain had been easily
identified as the perpetrator of the bus bomb because his were the only
injuries consistent with wearing explosives strapped to his chest - yet he
was apparently carrying the bomb in a rucksack.

THE PARKING TICKET & LINDSAY'S DNA
The narrative states that Lindsay's car was not ticketed and that this was
the reason why it was towed away - reportedly on the day of the attacks. It
is, in fact, not the policy of Luton station car park to tow away unticketed
cars. Specifically, it would be fair to assume, on the very same day they
are discovered without a ticket. On the car park regulations notice, under
section 12, headed "INVALID TICKET OR FAILURE TO DISPLAY A VALID TICKET",
the notice states:

12.1. If you fail to display ticket correctly (which means visible at all
times and available for inspection) at any time the following provisions of
this condition 12 shall apply. The right of the Company given in this
condition 12 are in addition to any other legal remedies available to the
company.

12.2. A Penalty Charge Notice ("PCN") will be affixed to your vehicle or
handed to you. The PCN will specify:

12.2. 1. the sum you are required to pay

12.2 2. the time within which payments must be made; and

12.2 3. the address to which payment must be sent.

The PCN will also explain that unless payment is made in accordance with
its terms court action may be commenced to recover the sum due under the PCN
together with costs, interest and any other sums legally recoverable, along
with the costs of recovery associated thereto.

Click for photo of Luton parking regulations.

In addition to this, there is a sign which warns that vehicles parked
illegally may be wheel clamped.

In other words, there is absolutely no mention of the towing away of
vehicles as being the penalty for not having a parking ticket visible on a
vehicle. This would, in any case, not be a reasonable course of action for
any car park to take on the same day a vehicle is discovered unticketed..

In contradiction to the narrative, news reports stated that Lindsay had
ticketed his car and it was the DNA he had left on the ticket which had been
used to identify his remains.
Lindsay's wife, Samantha Lewthwaite was adamant on July 17th that her
husband was innocent and said she would not believe he had been involved in
the attacks "until they have his DNA".

But this is contradicted by an interview she gave to the same newspaper on
September 23rd, where she stated:

"The next day [July 14th] they showed me Jamal on CCTV and said his DNA
proved he was one of the bombers. My world collapsed"

Source: Times Online

This, in turn, contradicts a report where the police had stated that DNA
identification would "take some time".

How could Samantha have been so insistent that she would not believe it
without DNA proof, but can later say she was aware that DNA proof already
existed three days beforehand?

Samantha had asked Lindsay to leave their home on July 6th after finding
texts on his phone to another woman. Therefore, she was not immediately
concerned that he would have been affected by the bombs on the 7th and did
not report him missing until July 13th. Strangely, that very same day the
police came and raided their home, even though there is nothing in the
narrative to suggest at this point that he was a suspect and apparently no
other concerned families reporting loved-ones missing had their homes
searched. The police did not find property belonging to Lindsay at the scene
of the Piccadilly Line explosion until July 15th.

THE WRONG MEN'S NAMES INITIALLY GIVEN
Early reports gave the name of the Piccadilly Line bomber as Ejaz or Eliaz
Fiaz, who, like three of the suspects came from Beeston. His brother,
Naveed, was detained at Paddington Green after the bombings but was released
without charge on July 23rd. He was reported to have handed himself in for
questioning voluntarily. Naveed Fiaz had worked alongside Khan in the Iqra
bookshop in Beeston and also for the Youth Support Service at Leeds
Community School.

So there were apparent connections between him and at least one of the
suspects, but there is no explanation for why Naveed's brother, who was
known as 'Jacksy', was believed to be the 'fourth bomber' and his name given
by the media with the same amount of confidence of the other suspects'
names. His house was raided along with those of the other suspects and
neighbours spoke of how he had taken the apparently unusual step of changing
his appearance by bleaching his hair and mentioned other personal details
about him.

Once Lindsay was identified as the suspect for the Piccadilly Line blast,
Fiaz was never mentioned again and, perhaps more importantly, has not been
heard of since.

The name originally given for the Edgware Road suspect was Rashid Facha.
Bizarrely, 'Rashid Facha' lived at the same address as Khan, and his wife's
name was given as Hasina Patel - the same name as Khan's wife. Neighbours
even spoke about him and the work he did, which appeared, yet again to be
similar to Khan's job.

A report in The Independent said:

"At 7.05am yesterday, police stopped at a neat, modern bungalow in
Thornton Park Avenue, in Dewsbury, west Yorkshire, where retired and
recently widowed former local high school teacher Farida Patel lives. Within
an hour or so, police raided an address at Lees Holm, a cul- de-sac of
council houses a five-minute drive away, where Mrs Patel's daughter Hasina,
23, has been living since January with her husband Rashid Facha " in his
late 20s and of Pakistani extraction " and their eight-month- old daughter.
Police arrived at the couple's house at 8.15am and Mrs Facha was led away in
her veil. A neighbour said Mr Facha had been missing since last Thursday."

Source: The Independent

The missing man described in this report was clearly Mohammad Sidique Khan.
He lived at the same address and had a wife and mother-in-law of the same
name. The neighbours surely knew what his name was, if they knew these other
names, so why was he ever referred to as Rashid Facha?

And, one might have thought, Rashid Facha most definitely would not have
been on the name found on the personal documents belonging to Mohammad
Sidique Khan that the government narrative states were found at no less than
three of the blast sites.

THE 'MASTERMIND'
Within hours of the bombings, the media were speculating about possible
'masterminds'. The first name to be mentioned was that of Mustafa Setmarium
Nasar, suspected of orchestrating the Madrid bomb attacks.

Even as later as November 2005, he was still being considered a suspect, as
reported in the Guardian:

"Nasar's name has been widely mentioned in reports citing security
officials speaking about the investigation into the July 7 bombings, in
which 52 people were murdered on the capital's transport system."

Source: The Guardian

Another name given a lot of press exposure was Haroon Rashid Aswat, from
Batley in West Yorkshire. He had reportedly left Britain "just hours" before
the attacks on London and according to the police, had made several mobile
calls to the men in the days leading up to the attacks. It is also claimed
that Khan phoned Aswat on the morning of July 7th.

It was reported at Aswat was arrested on July 20th 2005:

"Haroon Rashid Aswat was carrying a belt packed with explosives, a British
passport and a substantial amount of cash when he was seized, according to
intelligence sources in the country."

Source: The Guardian

Information Minister Sheikh Rashid rejected these reports, however, stating:

"We have arrested no one with the name of Haroon Rashid," the minister
told AFP. "The reports in this regard are untrue. I deny it."

Source: Africa.com

It was also strongly denied that anybody at all had been arrested in
Pakistan in connection with July 7th.

On July 29th, John Loftus, a terrorism expert and former federal prosecutor,
appeared on Fox News and revealed that Aswat was an asset of MI6, the
British Secret Service. According to Loftus, Aswat had been under the
protection of MI6 for many years.

What John Loftus was said was later confirmed and thereafter, Aswat's name
was only mentioned in connection with terrorist training camps he was
accused of setting up in the USA, for which he was ostensibly arrested in
Zambia in late July and deported to Britain on August 7th.

On October 8th 2005, The Times ran a suppositional article claiming that yet
another 'mastermind' had accompanied Khan and Tanweer on a whitewater
rafting trip they had taken with a Youth Group around a month before July
7th. He was described as a 'mystery figure' who had also apparently been
spotted on the streets of Beeston. The article stated:

"Police have never believed that the four British-born bombers were acting
alone and wonder if the mystery Pakistani man was sent to help the group to
finalise their plans."

Source: The Times

This is in contrast to a report almost two months earlier in the Independent
on August 13th 2005, which stated that the person that the Times article
seems to be referring to was an innocent Pakistani who happened to have a
similar name to a known terrorist. The article also stated:

"An investigation into the four suicide bombers from the first attacks and
the people alleged to be behind the July 21 plot has found no evidence of
any al-Qa'ida 'mastermind' or senior organiser. The inquiry involved MI5,
MI6, the listening centre at GCHQ and the police. The disclosure that the
July 7 team was working in isolation - and were radicalised by Mohammad
Sidique Khan, the oldest man - has caused concern among anti-terrorist
officers"

Source: The Independent

The official government narrative states, "The press reported later that a
known extremist figure and possible mastermind left the UK shortly before
the bombings. There is no evidence that this individual was involved" and
rather ambiguously concludes, "The extent of Al Qaida involvement is
unclear. Khan and Tanweer may have met Al Qaida figures during visits to
Pakistan or Afghanistan. There was contact with someone in Pakistan in the
run up to the bombings. Al Qaida's deputy leader has also claimed
responsibility."

THE 'FIFTH MAN'
From the concluding statements of the narrative:

"It remains unclear whether others in the UK were involved in radicalizing
or inciting the group, or in helping them to plan and execute it. But there
is no evidence of a fifth bomber"

having previously said:

"There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a "5th bomber". It was
thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a "5th man"
with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual
was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the
period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection
with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent
weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the "5th bomber" was also
arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no
intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers."

Discounting the idea of a fifth bomber leaves no explanation for the fifth
rucksack that was left in the car, apparently primed and ready for use.

The regular commuter that the narrative makes reference to is probably who
this Times report mentions, as a man who was picked up by CCTV cameras at
Luton standing next to the men.

Although according to a Newsday report, the men was not seen with them at
Luton, but at Kings Cross, and reports that at the time, police and
intelligence sources did consider him a suspect.

If there genuinely is "no evidence" to indicate that there was a fifth or
further bombers, then all the above reports were completely untrue; and then
one has to wonder why such stories, in all their apparent detail, are
allowed to mislead the British public.

THE VIDEO OF KHAN
On September 1st, 2005, al-Jazeera, a television station formed from the
remains of the BBC Arabic Service broadcast a video of Mohammad Sidique
Khan. It is not known why it took so long for this video to be shown. In
fact it is not known how or where the video was made - or even if it
actually is Khan. Many of his friends don't believe it is him and others
admit he looked 'significantly different' in the video.

The video showed Khan making no direct reference to London or any intentions
he had of organising an attack on it. In fact, if viewed objectively, his
speech was incredibly ambiguous

The video was edited to include footage of Ayman al-Zawahri, presumably to
give credence to the theory that al-Qa'ida organised the London bombings and
the Khan was a 'foot soldier'. However, the media later began dropping the
idea that the attacks had been organised by anyone other than the four
accused men themselves, despite Jack Straw's pronouncement that what
happened in London "Bore all the hallmarks" of the al-Qa'ida network.

There has been no explanation as to who edited the tape, how it was obtained
by al-Jazeera or why it incorporated the al-Sahab logo, a signature of
al-Qa'ida videos.

Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert pointed out the use of the logo, saying
there was "zero percent doubt" it was al-Qa'ida. He said:

"I find it a little bit depressing that people don't realise this is
al-Qaida's calling card. It shows how little some understand about
al-Qaida."

Source: The Guardian

Mustafa Alani, a security analyst at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Centre
had said:

"The style is that of al Qaeda -- multiple attacks in different
geographical locations to inflict maximum casualties. Only al Qaeda has the
ability to carry out successive attacks with such coordination, we have no
doubt it was al Qaeda, not only because of the planning of the attacks but
because of their political timing. Al Qaeda always times its attacks with
major political events. This is its strategy."

Source: The Mirror

Yet is has now become widely accepted, and confirmed by the narrative, that
the video can have had nothing to do at all with al-Qa'ida, and that the men
acted alone.

The narrative referred to the video and also mentioned a separate last Will
and Testament where Khan had indicated his intention to martyr himself
through a terrorist attack. However, this Will has never been previously
mentioned and certainly never shown.

THE UNCONFIRMED REPORTS

There were a few strange reports in the days after July 7th describing a
shooting at Canary Wharf the same day of the attacks.

"POLICE were yesterday probing reports a man had been "neutralised"
outside Canary Wharf. It is believed the man was shot dead by police
marksmen outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank."

Source: ICSouth London

The first report was from a Reuters employee who stated that it was two men
who had been shot, and that it had happened outside the HSBC building.

"The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the
two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).
Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to
stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours,
the New Zealand man said."

Source: New Zealand Herald

It is strange that these reports were never followed up. The above report
came from a New Zealand newspaper and the story was also picked up by
Canadian media, but there was barely a mention of it in British media, even
to rubbish the story.

It was obviously a day of confusion, but if an incident like this was
witnessed by the amount of people suggested in the report, this does not
suggest that what happened could have been mistaken. One witness reported
seeing a "saw a flurry of police cars and yellow-vested men" outside the
HSBC building.

At a press conference on July 7th, the police were asked to elaborate on the
reports, but they simply said there had been no such incident, with no
apparent explanation for why there should have been a "flurry" of police
activity at Canary Wharf.

Another odd report from that day which, perhaps understandably, has had no
press coverage is that Managers at Kings Cross station were all asked to
come to work early, at 7am, which they had rarely, if ever been asked to do
before. Before the explosions occurred, the Managers were told on no account
to speak to the press that day.

Such reports should not be dismissed on the basis that they come from
unnamed sources and did not reach mainstream coverage. An inordinate amount
of press coverage regarding the attacks of July 7th involved information
from 'sources' which were not named, yet are judged to be authentic in that
capacity. Such reports should surely be investigated, even if only to
discover that they had no basis in truth, rather than simply ignored by the
media.